You can either build renewables to replace fossil fuels in the next years (and if the build-up doesn't work as fast as you want to then it will takes a a few years more to reach zero), getting less and less every day. Or you can build new nuclear reactors and just keep burning coal full steam for 5 years, 10, 15, probably 20. And then you reactors are finally online, but electricity demand has increased by +100% (and further increasing...) so you burn more coal for another 5, 10, 15, or 20 years...

The exact same thing happens btw right now in basically every single European country that promotes nuclear. Because nobody is building enough capacities to actually cover the minimal required base load in 2-3 decades (electricity demand until 2050 will raise by a factor of 2,5 at least - because most countries today only cover 20-25% of their primary energy demand with electricity but will need to raise that to close to 100% to decarbonize other sectors; so we are talking about about a factor of 4-5, minus savings because electricity can be more efficient). They just build some and pretend to do something construtive, while in reality this is for show and they have basically given up on finding a solution that isn't let's hope the bigger countries in Europe save us.

For reference: France -so the country with optimal conditions given their laws and regulations favoring nuclear power and having a domestic production of nuclear reactors- announced 6 new reactors with an option for up to 8 additional ones and that they would also build up some renewables as a short-term solution to bridge the time until those reactors are ready. That's a lie. They need the full set of 14 just for covering their base load for their projected electricity demand in 2050 and that's just ~35% of ther production with the remaining 65% being massive amounts of renewables (see RTE -France' grid provider- study in 2021). Is this doable? Sure. It will be hard work and cost a lot of money but might be viable... But already today the country with good pre-conditions and in-house production of nuclear reactors and with a population highly supportive of nuclear can't tell it's own people the truth about the actually needed investments into nuclear (and renewables!), because it's just that expensive. (Another fun fact: The only reason why their models of nuclear power vs. full renewables are economically viable is because they also planned to integrate huge amounts of hydrogen production for industry, time-independent export (all other countries will have lower production and higher demand at the same time by then) and as storage. So the exact same thing the usual nuclear cult here categorically declares as unviable when it's about renewables.)

[–] lntl@lemmy.ml 32 points 1 year ago (8 children)

is it true that in reality we can only build renewables OR nuclear? i feel like that's not reality.

I'm reality, the world is burning and both techs will mitigate. instead of resisting nuclear, renewable advocates ought to go after fossil fuel subsidies

[–] Snowpix@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Really the entire goal should be both renewables and nuclear. Nuclear provides a reliable baseline that isn't dependent on weather conditions, is incredibly safe, and will last a long time at the cost of large upfront construction costs. Renewables are great for main power generation and can be used for small scale or large scale power generation and built quickly, but they need the weather to be optimal to generate optimal power. They also need to be mantained and replaced more often, which can be covered by that baseline nuclear provides. Since we don't have advanced enough power storage to use renewables exclusively due to their drawbacks, nuclear would be great for replacing coal and oil power plants to supply it when the renewables aren't able to do all of the work.

[–] cedeho@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

at the cost of large upfront construction costs

You forgot the large costs of operating, the large costs of maintaining, the large costs of nuclear waste disposal and the large costs of deconstruction of nuclear plants.

Yeah, other than that it's a great viable way for few very large companies to make great guaranteed profits as the tax payer will take care of the risks.

[–] lntl@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I honestly thought operational/maintenance costs were lower per unit of power in nuclear than wind/solar. Is that incorrect?

[–] mayo@lemmy.today 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No that claim isn't backed up by any sources I could find. Sounds fringe attitude to me. It's a good thing that people study this as their job and advise the legislative branch because it's complicated. When I looked up the levelized* cost of energy I had a hard time finding sources that agreed with each other. In particular, the nuclear societies were skewing the data, but the same with certain German think tanks claiming the exact opposite. Debate all around. Hydro FTW.